Mica Redress

If there was a main contractor, the buck would stop with them. How much of the construction was done on the cheap, cash in hand, mates rates, etc... If the state is required to step in, the limit of the states involvement should be to make sure that the individuals housing needs are met, not to replace what was built previously.

Interesting to note how clearly the public understand the issues in play.

Horrific to see Government continuing to entertain this campaign. This will be hugely unpopular with everyone, apart from builders in Donegal.

Oh, the hyperbole misery of it all.

Look, there's provision already for housing people in need. No-one needs to sleep tonight in a house that's likely to collapse.

I'd imagine it would be a shock and surprise to find yourself in the same queue as Margaret Cash. But, then, life has a habit of taking us to strange places.

If people actually have the level of despair you describe, then surely they're open to any reasonable solution. On the other hand, if folk are willing to wait it out as they pursue a demand for limitless 100% funding, it suggests they are not as despairing as you suggest.

Not this old dig again, about how the houses are falling down because we all cut corners up here, paid cash in hand etc. In other words, absolute bullcrap. This kind of post comes around every few weeks, usually by someone not involved long term in the thread.

Bottom line is everyone who built a house here, or indeed bought an already build house, did so in good faith. They paid all their taxes on the property and it's build, same as others in the country.

Difference is, the blocks being used were defective. However, no one knew at the time they were, so all the building went on as normal. And as often pointed out, blocks ate actually the cheapest part of building a house, so people didn't cut corners to save money on blocks, because it's not a major cost in building. So get that notion out of your head. No one cut corners or did anything illegal that caused their family home to fail.

Actually yes corners were cut. If the people had good engineers and proper tests done on the materials which I know were done in other parts of the country this would have been spotted a lot earlier. I do know some people who’s engineers discovered mica in blocks and told the house builders not to use them. People cut corners all the time building houses.

i still can’t fathom why the tax payer has to foot 100% of the bill. Engineers who oversaw the build ( if the home owner was neglectful enough not to employed one then I have no sympathy ) , insurance companies , banks , the suppliers of the materials should be held accountable first.. the tax payer should be the last resort.

No interest in going back through his post history. Posted that nonsense the other day in the thread engaged with them already. And loves so much to post absolute walls of text so there's no reply. As I said I won't be giving it an ounce of day. I don't need to paint anyone as anti Irish, they do it all by themselves.

As for going through history you'd only have to go through the other forum to see the absolute blarney that exits over there. Shameful place packed with mob mentality. You can see why people are struggling to support this continued 'blank cheque' mentality. Most of them seem to be unwilling even to have to dig into their own pocket to prove their eligibility for the grant scheme in the first place. I have absolutely zero appetite to pay any levy that supports that form of mob rule and I've certainly zero desire to pay for anyone's investment property at all. I'd be surprised if any other tax payers want to fund that through extra charges elsewhere. We have enough outgoings . Cheers though.

The blocks are defective, no question. However, if they did not use a main contractor, they took on additional risk. If the block supplier ain't got the money to pay up, the state should step in, but only to meet housing need, not to replace what was originally built.

Plus of course if the state provides alternative accommodation, the state owns it at least. Who gets the benefit of any tax payer input into these houses? The taxpayer?

The report said that homeowners on the working group advised that the average size of home affected is 2,400sq.ft [223sqm]  Source

Ireland’s average dwelling floor space is 160m² [1722sqft] Source

In the greater Dublin region average house size is 1,214 square feet [113sqm] Source

Maybe in general Donegal houses aren't much bigger than other rural counties but the average of the affected houses is, possibly due to a lot of self builds being effected.

Also they are far bigger than what is required. The government has a responsibility to stop these people becoming homeless, it doesn't have responsibility to fully compensate them for their losses.

Unless the effected families are on average twice as big as other families than yes they are bigger than required.

This comes down to a difference of opinion you think there should be compensation of like for like.

I think the state has a moral obligation to ensure those affected don't become homeless. So their required house size is similar to other social housing requirements based on family size.

If people want to be compensated like for like they are more than welcome to try and sue those who caused the issues, that isn't the state.

The state simply has a moral responsibility to try help house those affected the same as it has an obligation to house other people who are homeless, obviously there needs to be a specific scheme due to the numbers involved.

If a drunk driver crashed into someone they couldn't look to the state for compensation because the state didn't do enough road side tests.

The defective blocks are the fault of the quarry not the state.

I do believe more needs to be done such that those at fault should be locked up but that doesn't change that the state is not at fault the quarry is.